Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:47, 2 October 2009

Misplaced Pages is vandalised and biased by cliques of agenda driven editors censoring those they disagree with and distorting our article content in order to impose their personal beliefs on everyone else. Anyone who tries to correct inaccuracies, balance coverage, or uphold the core neutral point of view policy and its requirement that we include a variety of notable viewpoints is stalked, harassed, and intimidated into silence. This thuggish behavior and the disgusting damage it does to the integrity of Misplaced Pages has been encouraged by dishonest and corrupt admins. It has also been condoned by an incompent arbcom committee that can’t be bothered to enforce our most basic and fundamental policies and values.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Subterfuge

Compared to most people in the community, I agree with you. Hell, I even think that Mantanmoreland shouldn't have been run off of the project, and I spend a long time working to prove his socking. We literally cannot stop socking from happening, and I think it's much better to have people edit with stable accounts—the devils we know, after all. I just draw the line on people who aren't ready to give up their games. I just think it's clear that he's not done gaming. I'd bet a week's wages that he's still running another account. Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can eat fifty eggs! _matic 03:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I don't know if I can eat 50 eggs, but I've often got nuthin'. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can eat 50 eggs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, sometimes nuthin's a . . . _matic 03:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Real good cool hand? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost ;) _matic 04:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think I ever realized remembered that was where the name of the movie came from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's cuz yer really not that smart. Law _{type! snype?} 06:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You got your mind right, Law? Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Some men you just can't reach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I could, and have eat fifty eggs. ϢereSpielChequers 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• What .. we got here, is a failure, ... (I'll let someone else fill in the links and blanks) ;) — Ched :  ?  15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

I think that this has just the right number of article issue tags.--kelapstick (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I posted it to ANI for the inspiration of other good faith editors who may not be using tags to their full effect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an ANI post was required.--kelapstick (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it didn't go over well. Oops. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Climate change modeling

Why isn't there an article on climate change modeling? Isn't that a pretty big and important subject? Is it under a different title? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess because one does not model change one models climates to predict change? Global climate model Climate model? --BozMo talk 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected climate change modeling to global climate model. That way, people won't hit a redlink if they search for it, and they'll be directed to our existing information on the topic. MastCell  18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell. I'm still very surprised there isn't an article on climate change modeling. I think there's an important distinction between climate modeling and climate change modeling, even as they are related. People model climates and try to predict weather patterns, but this isn't the same thing as modeling climate changes that are systemic. Climate change modeling has to incorporate dyamisms and accelerations that a climate model doesn't. The erath's climates aren't static by nature, but the factors related to the change are quite critical. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong in this case. There's absolutely no difference between a climate model and a climate change model other than the specification of GHG concentrations. They're exactly the same code. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What is GHG? If what you say is true, that's very disturbing. Understanding how a climate operates and understanding how changes to a climate system effect climate are not the same thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

GHG = greenhouse gas. I know less than nothing about climate modeling, but part of the reason to model anything is that you can then change parameters in the model and see how other parameters are affected. So a "climate model" and a "climate change model" are probably semantically the same. MastCell  20:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@MastCell, yes, thanks for explaining. Apologies for lapsing into jargon. @ CoM: The physical principles that govern fluid dynamics and thermodynamics don't change when the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase (or decrease). Perhaps this should be moved from William's talk -- your place or mine? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But it still seems a bit like the difference between addressing something in two dimensions or three dimensions. Or leaving out or adding a variable in a math problem. A climate model and a climate change model aren't necessarily addressing the same thing. To use another metaphor (that may or may not be helpful) it's like discussing velocity as opposed to acceleration. Dynamisms and feedbacks over time are critical to a climate change model, but a climate model may just look at an annual cycle and normal fluctuations that occur year to year. If the earth slowed its spin, or solar radiation didn't just fluctuate but changed directionally, or the greenhouse gas component is materially altered, then that may change how the system itself is set up. But back to how this is covered on Misplaced Pages, can we at least separate out a climate modeling article from global climate model? The global climate model (where climate modeling currently redirect) is only one model and there are regional models and other types of climate modeling are there not? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to explain as a non-climatologist (Boris - correct me if you are watching and I am wrong; I think I have the gist of it if it is anything like the models I use). A general circulation model (or global climate model) is largely a bookkeeping system for mass and heat transport. The idea behind them is to be a physically accurate model of how processes on the Earth operate. This is why the same kind of GCM is usable for many scenarios: they are entirely based on laws of physics, and the inputs and outputs play in the model with respect to those bounds. If a certain input term is large, it will not change the backbone structure. Feedbacks would occur when an input term causes another input term to be activated (e.g., greenhouse gas - induced warming leading to arctic methane release leading to more greenhouse gases, etc.). Does this make sense? It's like the inputs are kindergartners, and the model is a gymnasium in which they are required to act and interact in ways that obey the laws of mechanics and thermodynamics. And the scientist gets to choose which kindergartners to put in the gymnasium.

For that reason, it is 100% not the difference between velocity and acceleration, in which transferring from one to the other adds or removes information (the constant of integration) and the value in question fundamentally changes. Perhaps a better analogy that is still close to what you say could be that the model is an operator which acts on the input. Awickert (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahem...

This time you've gone too far. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That IP traces to Virginia. Isn't that where Tarc lives? You're going to get me in trouble Doc because I'm not sure I'm even allowed to use the O word, and I don't mean Oprah or Ontario. One must not talk about him in vain, apparently. I walk on eggshells, he walks on water. For all I know I'll be blocked for commenting in the bullshido.net AfD discussion because one of el presidente's kids is taking karate lessons. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

remember our secret cabal, crew, whatever?

Check out Martin Seemungal, Cocktion, Buntil, and Matthias Pliessnig. Since those articles are created by you they are probably not about notable subjects, so I didn't remove the recently added tags. Hey, I got some myself too! (Check my history.) Drmies (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Groupies! I notice the deleted article on Toe Hole, or whatever that group is called, still replaces your user page now and again. You mentioned something about blocking me Doc, but of course you need to run the RfA gauntlet first! What's taking so long? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nothing--I'm just scared! Oh, I see what you mean now--I have been missing a whole lot of vandalism on my user page. Haven't checked for toeholes yet, since I'm off to edit war again! Later! (No I'm taking a nap.) Drmies (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Talking

You seem to feel that I don't talk to you enough . But then you do stuff like this . I've already told you that you can't have it both ways. I can't force you to be polite. But I can and will refuse to converse with you on my talk page while you remain rude William M. Connolley (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss climate modeling (a redirect to the Global Climate Model) with you. My understanding was that you had some expertise on that subject. If you don't want to engage in collegial discussion with me related to article work, okay. People have disagreements sometimes and I like to leave differences in the past. If you want to hold a grudge and remain bitter, there's not much I can do about it. I don't have any problem with you other than requesting that you be more collaborative and respectful of your fellow editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Escalating dispute?

Please tell me how I escalated the dispute since it started before January? It deals with multiple pages without any relationship between then except the same group of people using inappropriate tactics. I am also not the only one this has happened to by that group. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the other disputes? The one I saw was over a particular description of Oscar Wilde. If you insist on following through with Arbcom I suspect you will be restricted. That's what they do. They stop activity that's become disruptive by sanctioning whoever is at the center of it. Their investigations and decisions have very little to do with who's right or wrong. And they don't do much to untie knots. They simply smoosh whoever is "causing" the problem. Your approach is pretty confrontational Ottava and the feuding has spread to numerous boards. So I'm suggesting you slow down a bit and try to sort some of the disputes out by getting outside opinions or let them go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read. I also mentioned it at the ANI thread and on other threads. It seems like few of the responders want to actually read the links given which show a very long history of problematic actions. I have been receiving prompting from dozens of people to take this to ArbCom for the past month. I have sent many emails to Arbitrators from the beginning of the recent reoccurance of the problems. This is not something I do lightly or without advice. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What outcome would you desire from Arbcom? You're making accusations against several editors, and my experience suggests that our consensus guidelines tend to favor whoever has numbers. I have limited experience with the Fringe board, but I my experience make me tend to be sympathetic towards your complaints. But your go it alone strategy doesn't seem prudent to me and I don't see an outcome that's going to be contructive to your interests. If you'd like more independent eyes on those boards and opinions on the disputes why not ask for that? Isn't that how disputes are worked out here? Arbcom looks at behavior and hands down sanctions. So what sanctions would be appropriate? You already have Jehochman, who is a very experienced editors, trying to put you under editing restrictions. The course you're taking doesn't seem like one with an outcome that's going to be favorable to you or the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The outcome I want is simply - probation and desysopping. All of them who are admins have abused their authority and used the position in order to further intimidation. A probation would be to keep them from backing each other up in such a manner with 24 hour blocks if they continue to do so. They have abused consensus, pushed things that were directly against policy, and caused many problems with their actions. If you think that allowing that group to continue to operate in the manner they do is favorable to the encyclopedia, then you haven't looked at what they have been doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "go it alone"? Where did you get that idea? I constantly work with dozens of editors when I write my pages, and I was not the only one attacked. At the Persian Empire page, they first pulled their games in edit warring against Wizardman even though he told them what they were doing lacked consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

By "go it alone" I was referring to your Arbcom request. I reiterate my suggestion that you try to resolve the disputes by bringing in a broader sample of opinion and using dispute resolution means that are content focused rather than enforcement and behavior focused. You seem adamant about pursuing an arbcom hearing, but their decision is likely to be adverse to your editing interests as much as anyone elses. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you want me to get a bunch of people to meat puppet for me at my ArbCom request when I am putting it up solely because others do the same to me? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, have I said or suggested that anywhere? My suggestion is to withdraw the Arbcom request because it escalates the dispute and is unlikely to bring about a helpful outcome. You've brought attention to the disputes and the issues of concern. Now try to work through them calmly and respectfully. Escalating confrontations, as you now seem to be trying to do with me, isn't always helpful and can become self-defeating. If you insist on following through at Arbcom that's up to you. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just offering my opinion and some suggestions.

I understand you're frustrated and I've tried to note that I respect where you're coming from and that I think you have some legitimate concerns. My issue is with your approach to get the situation improved. Arbcom and enforcement noticeboards result in long drawn out drama fests, when I think your best interest is in getting assistance resolving the content disputes so you can get back to article editing. I understand that cabals of editors and/or admins can be problematic, but a large scale confrontation with several editors is also problematic. They have a right to be here and to edit also. So the solution is to get all of you to deescalate and to work through the disagreements appropriately without personal attacks or incivility so we can all focus on collegial collaboration and improving the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, please read my statement at Arbcom. Since before last January, a group of editors have been joining together and causing problems. They have used their group to intimidate and bully others in order to push views that directly contradict our policies. It has come to ANI and other places many, many times. I have also had many direct communications with Arbitrators over the matter since the beginning of September because of their edit warring on Persian Empire and other problems. I have been told by over 25 people through email, messenger, IRC, and the rest that ArbCom is necessary and that I should do so. I was only holding back because I wanted to finish the WikiCup and real life matters. However, they continue to cause disruptions so it needs to end via ArbCom. You don't seem to understand the issue if you can think it is capable of "deescalating". A group of 8 people do not simply back down. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck Ottava. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss the issue with me. I don't like your odds. But I'll be folowing the matter with interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There was massive edit warring and a major page is gone because of it, so, there is a lot of content damage they are responsible for and ArbCom has known about it for a while. I am sure the bravado of a few people will be ignored and the actual case will be focused on. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think that page should be deleted I suggest posting a neutrally worded request for outside opinions on the content noticeboard. I don't see how Arbcom can desysop of ban those editors over it. Their close collaboration may be problematic, but I don't see particular behaviors that are punishable. And as far as addressing the disruption related to the disputes, you're likely to bear the brunt of any enforcement actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM - there were two consensus gatherings. There was edit warring for multiple weeks. There were long term attacks by them on multiple pages, and that was not the only page they operated in that manner on. The reason why it was noticed is that Persian Empire is a major page where they previously kept most of it to obscure pages. It was also noticed because one of the users, Wizardman, was an arbitrator and not just some new person that could have been bullied out of existence like they did before. However, it deals with many, many pages besides just one. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If there's edit warring the page can be protected while additional opinions are sought. A straw poll or other consensus determining method is implemented. Your approach to editing tends to be confrontational. That sometimes happens when people get frustrated, but several editors have suggested you tone it down. If you aren't willing to do that and escalate to the Arbcom proceeding I think you will be sanctioned. I'm familiar with the problems associated with packs of editors trying to impose their POVs (see top of my talk page) but there's no magic wand that Arbcom can wave to solve the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a straw poll - no consensus to change the page. Followed by edit warring. Followed by protection. Followed by straw poll - no consensus to change the page. Followed by edit warring. Followed by protection. New straw poll shows no consensus to change the page and they edit warred it out again. Child of Midnight, please actually look into things instead of just responding without. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments here I hope it has the right effect. I used WP:3RR here in an attempt to highlight a problem. I don't respond to personal attacks anymore, or posts containing them. The level of incivility that is now considered ok and the non-stop assumptions of bad faith is just mind bending. At least one Admin suggested that if accusations are being made they should be backed up or removed, your approch would be equally welcome if it has the effect your hoping for. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As I thought, and now have come to expect, regardless of what editors are asked, the accusations keep on coming! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Those articles seem to be very contentious. Frustrations are obviously high all around. I agree that the confrontational approach and personal attacks aren't helping. Could you be a little more thorough in addressing the concerns brought up by Jdorney. Some of your responses are so short it's hard to divine exactly what your objection is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right that the articles seem to be very contentious, but that is no reason for incivility. "Frustrations" as an excuse have already been offered to condone some of the personal attacks I've had to put up with and yet I have remained civil. I have not allowed "Frustrations" to get the better of me, because I don't allow myself to get frustrated. Lets be honest, when you get the amount of personal abuse I get, breif is best when it comes to comments. Review some of my recent talk page discussions, thats the great thing about page histories. It's the editors that make the articles contentious, not the other way round. If you just happen to notice any accusations being leveled at me, it would be nice if you could ask for a diff to support it? Here is a diff free discussion i decided not to get involved in, because comments like this are a real put off for me.LOL. Now that I've burned and bended your ear enough, I'll apologise for taking up your time, and will just be on my way. Thanks again for comments again. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus certainly has a way with words. :) I hope your editing experience improves. Getting attacked all the time is no fun. Been there done that. If you have article editing interests that are free from politics that helps. Although I've seen some food fights at culinary articles that have been pretty wild... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no real problems editing, and the personal abuse I get is to my mind based on an inability or as an alternative to presenting logical arguments. Can’t find a source or reference to support your views, start an argument. Throwing out a few accusations usually does the trick to deflect a discussion. All I’d like to see is an editor being challenged to support their claims, and failing to do so, being told to comment on edits and not editors. While you can always try to fight fire with fire, I prefer to use cold water. By not responding to insults, you can remove the fuel they need, but prevention is a much better option. At the end of the day it’s the project that suffers and it just discourages content editors. A well, there is me ear bashing again!!!! --Domer48_'fenian' 12:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to fill up the AfD page with side discussions...

I believe we have a different opinion on what constitutes significant coverage. What you put is more of an indication of notability for Samuel Browning, which redirects to David "Race" Bannon#Bannon's arrest. --kelapstick (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he's notable too. But the section I quoted is about Bulshido.net, it's owner, and the role these subjects played in outing Browning. It gives pretty substantial coverage to that. Combined with the other sources I think it's enough. I notice that this topic has been discussed on the net in relation to Misplaced Pages and Ashida Kim, which was AfDed numerous times. I'm not up on what all the hubbub is about. I've also indicated that a merge would be okay since there is an appropriate target. But deleting well sourced content about the organizations and its notable accomplishments doesn't seem helpful to me in building an encyclopedia representing the sum of human knowledge. Don't make us ignorant of these subjects K! We want to know stuff!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any more mention of the site than a sentence (if there is more behind that paywall, than all the better). If there is more, than it should have been provided and worked into the article (sometimes offline sources are difficult to work with). I would likely support a merge, but as it sits now the only thing that I can gather from the sources provided is that bullshido.net is a website, and is used for outing fraudulent martial artists.--kelapstick (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And who the owner is and where he's from. And that it's played substantial role in outing a notable figure. And whatever other content is in the various sources, for example how popular it is, when it was established, etc. etc. :) What's on tap for the weekend? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If all he/website did was out a notable figure, than he isn't notable by WP:BLP1E. I would support an article about Browning before the site, probably would anyway as I think he has the coverage. You know, I was once in the Thompson Citizen for participating in Operation Red Nose, they even put in a picture. Does that mean that I pass the GNG? Working Sunday, not sure what I am doing tomorrow...we shall see.--kelapstick (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So you worked for an escort service? How interesting. But no, you're still not notable. And remember, it takes more than one event! It's best if you are cited in numerous sources over several years the way Bullshido.net has been. And even then we may merge you if you aren't independently notable enough for more than a mention in the Canadian troublemakers in the United States article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net has been mentioned. Not given in depth coverage, or do you mean that they were the source of information for the newspaper, in which case is bullshido.net a reliable source? Maybe I should be getting my sources from them as they are completely qualified to provide reliable information to a reliable source, maybe we should use the bullshido.net website to establish notability, despite it's not being independent. My head is starting to hurt. If I wanted to I could get mentioned in the local paper here, I had the offer to be a judge at the rodeo parade, I would have for sure made the Mason Valley News, that would be multiple international sources for multiple events. Then I would pass the GNG, there could be no dispute, why didn't I take that offer, I went to Vegas instead.--kelapstick (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim and Bullshido.net

Since you are interested about the connection between Ashida Kim and Bullshido.net, I have outlined why there were multiple AfDs about this article. This defaming BLP was kept after multiple AfD debates because a group of editors believed that he was notable, even though there lacked significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (For most context, see Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s comment at a DRV). In the first AfD of this article, Ashida Kim himself nominated his own article for deletion. Reading his nomination will reveal the connection between him and Bullshido.net and how the Misplaced Pages article about him was a blatant defamation. See this archived link of the "Ashida Kim" article in 2005, which is a major BLP violation.

DGG (talk · contribs)'s comment at the final AfD, which resulted in a delete, is an objective summary of why Ashida Kim was ultimately deleted. DGG wrote, Looking at current and previous versions of the article, and at the sources, and the discussions, this is clearly a negative BLP with inadequate sourcing. I cannot imagine that if it had come to us fresh in this state now for the first time, that it would not be quickly deleted without much argument. I am generally very reluctant to give much weight to the subject's views with respect to notability, but in this case he is complaining not just of notability but fairness, and he seems to be correct. I am , frankly, amazed at what was said during some of the earllier afds, particularly the 1st one in 2005. Delete, and courtesy blank this and all previous AfD discussions.

I oppose a merge to Bullshido because both Bullshido.net and Bullshido lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Both are composed of original research, and both do not belong here. I plan to AfD Bullshido at the end of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination).

This article also cannot be merged to Samuel Browning, since Browning does not have enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. The only sources about him are the sources that are about how he exposed David "Race" Bannon; not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, according to Slideyfoot (talk · contribs), Samuel Browning is not the owner of Bullshido.net: "he site is actually run by Neal Fletcher, not Browning". Therefore, even if Samuel Browning were notable, this website cannot be merged since it is only tangentially related to Browning. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. I'm still not clear on why there is such a strong push to delete the article on the website. There isn't an enormous amount of coverage, but there is some substantial coverage in reliable independent sources (and I don't think it's fair to describe it as "mentions"), and the site and its owner were involved in a notable outing. It's also been cited in other sources apart from that incident. So I'm just not getting why it's important to delete this article on this website that has received some coverage? I recognize that it is in a gray area, all joking aside, as far as whether it meets guidelines or not, but my preference is to lean toward preservation unless there is some compelling interest (advertising, difficult to maintain, BLP issues) to delete something. I also like to crush Drmies and Kelapstick by winning disputes with them when our views differ. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, the owner is not Browning, the person who exposed David "Race" Bannon and is the person covered in the sources that you are referring to. Browning is only a member, while Neal Fletcher is the owner.

Why should this article get deleted? It lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article is filled with original research and fails Misplaced Pages's core policy of verifiability. There are no merge targets because a) Bullshido is a non-notable topic that has the same OR problems as this one. b) Samuel Browning fails WP:BIO and meets WP:BLP1E. c) David "Race" Bannon – The article about Banning should be about himself; it should not discuss a website that is only tangential to his life.

I strongly disagree that the sources provide "substantial coverage". Substantial coverage means that the topic is discussed throughout an entire source or at least a substantial portion of the source. A trivial mention that provides a little background about a different topic does not constitute significant coverage.

Crushing Drmies and Kelapstick? No, I think their superior arguments are karate chopping yours to shreds. ;) But of course I'm not an unbiased judge of all this. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I hate to disagree with you on your own talkpage, so let us pretend that I don't agree with Cunard. Anyway, since I am currently overlooking the Gulf of Mexico, where the water is clear and blue, the beer is cold, and Bama is beating Arkansas, I feel extraordinarily generous towards you and others who wish to crush me. After all your weak arguments are blown away like so much sand in the wind, after what you think of as strong argumentative foundations are revealed to be nothing more than whirling eddies in a strong current, I will not gloat and I will not laugh, but, in the spirit of friendship, I will offer you a spot in the hot tub, and share a beer with you and some blackened fish. My regards from the coast, Drmies (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Some issues

Remain on the Sustainability discussion page and article. Your discussion voice is requested. skip sievert (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There are too many other article to work on than to bother with the incivility and nastiness on that one. Sorry. The article certainly needs lots of work. But if several editors like it the way it is, then so be it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose most special interest groups like it when people say that. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:-5-

A fantastic user who has left Misplaced Pages...--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No note on why he or she left I noticed. Easy come easy go? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See here. _matic 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Bongo. I've thought about clearing my watchlist for that sort of reason. Time to move on to new territory? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a sui generis content creator and windmill-tilter. I'm a creature of habit. When I want less, I just spend less time doing the same old thing. _matic 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

a dress

I saw this and thought you might be interested --Snowded 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I prefer the bacon bra. But I still think it goes best with eggs or on a sandwich with avocado. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Law fought the . . .

and the . . . won. _matic 05:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

<blink> I suppose the law (as opposed to just Law), won....--kelapstick (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading between the lines it looks like Law disclosed who we was to people more or less knowing it would come out. I'm not sure why. I think pushing people to the shadows and then acting shocked when it comes out that they have a history is a bit of a joke. Participating in RfAs I would say most or at least many of them have undisclosed histories.

When a frequent editor disappears, do we assume they've left for good or that they are editing under a new account? In recent discussions very experienced and powerful editors have suggested that reemerging under a new identity is basically assumed and accepted. I've long suggested that encouraging transparency and accountability would be better, but that's not the way people want to set things up. Oh well. Interesting.

I like Law. I like Pastor Theo/ Ecoleetage too. I don't agree with all of their actions any more than I agree with anyone else all the time. But they certainly did good work to benefit Misplaced Pages. Shouldn't that be the standard by which editors are judged? They did a much better job then many other admins and editors playing politics and pushing POVs. Anyway, the politics and game playing here is ridiculous. I can't believe how hard it is to just edit articles and contribute content without getting caught up in the POV pushing and MMPORG circus. Frustrating. Oh well. What are you hiding Bongo? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your sentiments for the most part. And I "like" lots of editors who I don't like at all—by which I mean I hope they stick around and continue doing what they're doing on the content side even if they annoy the cr@p out of me in other ways. What am I hiding? Nothing on WP, that's for sure. I ran across an incredibly interesting editor here (who ought to have a WP page about him) who argues that even small amounts of anonymous data with sufficient tagging to correlate it makes us all totally traceable. So probably, nothing anywhere. What about you? _matic 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I try to be pretty straightforward, but with all the game playing and wacky rules it's sometimes tricky. I feel fortunate to have a sense of humor about it all, because this place is nuts and it takes all I've got just to maintain some sanity. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmm

Looks good. _matic 08:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. I like regional foods like that. Fun. Thanks for the link. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisting

This is notice of relisting at AfD of an article you commented on one year ago, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WeeChat (2nd nomination) Miami33139 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking of AfDs, I think you should weigh in on this one: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pork client. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tit for tat

Hi, CoM. Just ignore the frivolous provocation. --Caspian blue 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue, long time no see. How have you been? I don't see our mutual friend around much either. A loss if he's not around, but maybe he is editing under a different identity? That seems to be quite common, especially among admins. :)

Sorry for not being more helpful on the city article. I'm not great with all the demands and specificities of meeting Misplaced Pages's grading process. I'm more concerned with having interesting, balanced and well written articles. :)

Speaking of which, all these dramas have really cut down on my contributions. You suggest I ignore them, but experience dictates that the mud slinging sticks and the lies take a toll. Just look at Sandstein's abusive behavior which he still hasn't apologized for. He's also made no effort to correct the many inaccuracies and falsehoods he states. So maybe it's worth fighting some of these battles?

Admittedly, I'm not the best at engaging in them since I treat them as the ridiculous nonsense they are (I'm holding fast to the naive assumption that we're here to collaborate on encyclopedia building), but no one's perfect! We are all quite set in our ways. Old dog, new tricks and such. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)